As far as I remember, Heal Selection needs python-fu with python2, so if your distro installs that without making you jump through burning, electroshocked, barb-wired hoops then you should have a serious word with the maintainers of said distro - Python2 has been put to its rightful grave over three years ago.
1 Like
I don’t know. Photoshop costs money while GIMP is free.
if your distro installs that without making you jump through burning, electroshocked, barb-wired hoops
It does, but you still can.
If you’re on Arch (or an Arch-based distro like Manjaro), it’s very straight forward — you can install everything you need with one click from the AUR (at least, that was my experience).
@grubernd & @Ofnuts
What would be, according to you, the rightful and enviable outcome of this ?
- Update python-fu in gimp to accommodate newer python version ?
- Port python-fu supported filters and function to a new framework ?
- Being able to run python2 easily on any distro ?
- Non of the above ?
It’s been ported to Python 3 so it’ll work in Gimp 2.99/3.0. I’ve also been studying the algorithm to see if I could implement it as a built-in tool (no promises on when or if)!
3 Likes
That’d be really nice !
1 Like
I have a functioning prototype in Gimp 2.99 if you want to see a demo (it’s a tool but it calls the plug-in for the actual work)
CmykStudent: “A small experiment with creati…” - Fosstodon
2 Likes
Not at the moment, but that is part of the plan.
Oh, OK
Thank you
Hello,
I somehow doubt that GIMP will ever get better funding or team growth, problem is, while being generous and giving us an amazing image editing app, the dev team has/had no interest in making it a serious tool for image manipulation and be the desired alternative to other commercial software. Maybe it’s because the developers didn’t do any serious productions in image manipulation them selves, if at all, lack of interest or time because of life things, but they successfully ignored a few most important things throughout a decade that would have made GIMP be what Blender is today. One of them being adjustment layers like functionality. Unsurprisingly interest in GIMP grew smaller by many people who were looking for a Photoshop alternative. This is where all the motion comes from and funding could have been found, some extra smart people would have joined. But I remember once there was a discussion and a bit hostile responses by someone from the Dev team regarding the topic of adjustment layers and sometging else. Which didn’t help the situation. So the team developing GIMP is very small, it’s a huge app to handle, technology is rapidly evolving and new requirements are getting more complicated. GIMP is being developed too slowly and with no certainty on direction. Porting to GTK3 took so long it’s already obsolete, GTK 4 probably is on the end of life (sorry, I am KDE user so don’t fallow much Gnome and GTK things), but a fundamental function as adjustment layers is still not touched, how do we expect AI enhanced tools to be implemented? What is more, the power of open source is not working as well. Just a handful of people seems to try and write plugins for GIMP. Most likely because it’s unknown when GIMP 3 will be out and stable and how things will proceed from there.
That is why apps like Krita and Blender are faster to get innovative attempts like AI tools and plugins, they have clear roadmaps and goals, they focus and has bigger interest in what artists need and want as well as use the software for their own real projects, so they know what to do and they attract investors. With clear conception they also get huge interest from communities that either fund projects or put their hands and minds into development.
I am not telling that GIMP is bad, just notice that the pace of it’s development seems slower every year. And many people moved on. And even latest update seems outdated compared to what the one would like to see nowadays when opened GIMP.
I miss those days when GIMP was that image manipulation app making waves and kicking Adobe’s butt with innovations like content aware scaling, which made many graphics software development companies crumble and now we don’t hear about GIMP at all. If only GIMP dev team decided to strive for certain goals, maybe that path could bring in more passion and interest by those, who could write more of the AI tools.
But since GIMP dev team does this project from their own good will and income comes from elsewhere, we can’t expect or demand things, I am just grateful they didn’t drop development of GIMP and that it is not abandonware. Even though I moved on to other app for photo editing, I, as so many others, really needed that adjustment layers functionality… with that and AI tools GIMP would be phenomenal.
2 Likes
Why necro this thread to be so negative?
This is about to drop any day now, in a dev release.
I think some of your points are probably near the mark, but I’m not quite clear what point you’re trying to make, or what response you hope to get.
Check out the thread below; adjustment layers, via GEGL is already being done. 
1 Like
I think he just want to vent frustration with regards on status of raster graphic content creation/editing in Linux. A year ago or so, that was almost the exact opinion I had. Now? In the near future, I might be end up ditching Krita for good considering their audience conservative stances on features, and for painting, I never had a intention to delve into the intrisics of their brush engine (which confuse some artists, but I was always fine with 6 basic boring brushes), and NDE is what I need for editing.
3 Likes
Just chimed in to express my opinion why we don’t see more and better AI powered tools in GIMP and I couldn’t do it without some criticism. That hopefully will not be taken as offense.
If it is true that GIMP is getting adjustment layers, hopefully we’ll see GIMP back on tack again with lots of motion and attention towards it. Pretty much the only major obstacle, and of course if some plugins will do a come back like resyntheziser etc.
We really need a good image editor especially on Linux, GIMP is a bit sleepy, Krita is wonderful and very active in development, but they focus on digital painting and animation exclusively, I once attempted to raise the photo editing topic and so many people seemed ready to burn me like a witch in medieval times…
It would be wonderful to see GIMP 3 released soon and with adjustment layers as this could boost interest in GIMP again for so many. But then, would the dev team be ready to listen to what creative community wants and meet those guidelines? After all they’re developing GIMP as their spare time activity, unless that changed. Good source for inspiration is Blender, they do things really well and inspire entire industry and not only we see fast development and growth, but also there is high interest by third parties to develop plugins and extensions.
3 Likes
I get that frustration.
Going on the krita-artists forum, users are now on the stance that if a feature is even remotely useful for anything other than painting, it’s a hard-no, and they’d rather be looking for more painting-orientated features though that search is getting exhausted. They wanted to implement physical-based painting, and it is stalled because of the algorithm time complexity doesn’t make it suitable for painting in the end. I’d argue that the closing gaps part of filling tool is the end of the road for that goal given that physics-based painting is just ain’t happening. They’re probably likely to move on to animation despite that’s a smaller niche.
On the GIMP side on the other hand, history of development can be argued to be so slow to the point where even people with some bit of faith toward GIMP bailed and there were rises of alternative like Affinity suites. So, it can be understandable why people dislike GIMP.
The good news is that Krita isn’t really missing that much to finally be a suitable alternative, and that missing thing is foreground selection tool. That’s something I want to continue the patch for, but without any solution to the noise bug between fully-selected and not selected areas, and I can no longer build Krita, that project has stalled and so my dream of Krita with built-in foreground selection tool is dead for now. And GIMP is getting NDE pretty soon. So, we could have multiple alternatives that fits similar roles in the end. And despite what people like to think, they’re both suitable for editing and painting, and we have examples to show for that actually.
2 Likes
People throw out the blender comparison way too easily. Ton from blender spent in excess of a decade advocating and improving blender with very little traction before it finally caught on. This was not a small amount of work and it didn’t happen because “magic.”
“Just follow the blender model” as if its just that easy…
If you want to go feature for feature of gimp against applications that pay a lot of developers to write code, its probably going to lose. Krita was also losing before they found their digital painting nitche.
The question we should be asking is “does gimp have the features I need to accomplish what I want to do for my images?” For me that is a “yes” and has been for a long time.
1 Like
I fully appreciate the comments all around, here.
First and foremost, GIMP is a fantastic piece of software; just like @paperdigits , it fullfills my needs completely — and, indeed, this is likely to be the single-most important factor for a great many users.
As is the case with absolutely anything else under the sun, though, of course it wouldn’t hurt to add more features and functions; as is usually the case with almost everything else, however, acheiving such goals usually means facing various challenges and requires the necessary time and resources to invest — not to mention that, quite often, not all of our desires and wishes are even practical to start with (for many a varied reason).
Whenever I propose an idea, I try to keep the classic ‘what, why, when, where, who, and how?’ in mind – i.e. what should be done, why we should do it, when it should be done (importance), who is available to do it, and — the hardest one of all! — how it can be all put together to acheive the desired outcome (i.e. a detailed, well investigated, well tested, practical solution). I very rarely have answers to all of them — which should be of no great surprise to anyone. 